1dontnkow_

I remember a company during the interview asked me are things I do not work with or don't like, especially since they had a very diverse team culturally where e.g. some folks couldn't work on any kinda gambling resembling platform due to their religious beliefs.

I told them that TBH didn't think much before about it, appreciate the question and to answer: I could never see myself working on weapons used for war, products used by countries to repress their population (relevant due to my upbringing) or any kinda of mass surveillance system. The HR just noted them down but I saw every technical person smiled and understood truly what I'm talking about and they insured me that they so and so don't ever work on those kinda projects.

PS: before someone comes now and says "BUT DO U USE IG?!" No I don't use most social platforms but also if I did just because I'm flawed and the system isnt perfect, doesn't mean I'm gonna give up on all my morals right away and not choose better when I have the option.

Just put it at top of values or some kinda culture fit or hiring policy document, and youre fine.

PS: Not absolutely every company has to let go of all morals and focus purely on profit. Thats the beauty of companies, you can open and lead them for different reasons.

Im from Germany and there are many companies like that, there the Values (or a Mission) that are actually taken into account when decision making and sometimes you lose money but that's expected and normal.

Thinking gambling in any way or form makes the world a better place or just leaves it as it is, is utterly delusional and any contact (or support) with that person should be avoided like the plague.

I was thinking about this but sometimes its hard to distinguish between what the marketing of OpenAI, Anthropic and other companies say and what actually all the companies are doing throughout the world. Any thoughts on that?

For example even the layoffs, nowadays seem to be because of AI or so they said but just a year or two ago there were quite some layoffs and people said "its because of the high demand in COVID and now its over, or Ukraine or inflation" but then that ignores that exactly during that time earlier were there many layofs but it was super easy "Oh COVID and supply chain!" and earlier maybe something else.

Surely there are also economic booms but when did the whole world jsut suddenly started seriously listening to public statements of companies (and that jsut a few with no real income, just money from VCs) and nobody shows us the real data of whats actually happening? E.g. the companies saying they fired 10K due to AI, how much did they actually now direct their budget to AI? How many products are actually being build? Is the productivity the same? Are the customers thinking that support is suddenly amazing or actually it has seriously dropepd in quality? Or no change at all? Is it a company like KFC, your local hardwore chain store, financial isntitutions, truck manufactures or anothet AI company with funding using another AIs company with other funding using now one more AIs company products up to the power suppliers?

For me it seems that its definitely impacting things and a cool technology to be more productive (for example it helps me a lot daily but its not like my life really changed) but the other things I haven't seen yet.

Another point each actual AI generated app is either something akin to a toilet game or not really working (like the C compiler). So where are the amazing enterprise complicated apps fully built via agents? In banks, in government, in apps that respect GDPR and actually are secure but proudly build only or mostly with agents? The only ones, not even secure, are other AI apps to do AI stuff but its whole value it says is to be more productive in the "real" economy but it still hasn't done it yet anywhere. People still struggle with Word or AWS infra or debugging why some specific user cant log in with their custom auth provider at some esoteric region with their laws and audits and GDPR variant.

So one side says its basically a tool from God and they never have created more stuff but on the other hand the other group analyzing blood work, delivering food, writing reports, etc uses it a bit or not at all but all the 95% of problems they had are there with some new ones. Also I'm afraid most of them just write now their email better or with more volume, but no real work is getting done.

So yeah maybe my confusion simply lies in that fact that I have a real job and nobody can keep up with all the slop and shit generated online anymore. I'm open to feedback or learn.

This makes me think of a thought I had the last weeks and months with the geopolitical chaos currently in the world:

While understanding the danger of dictators and technical mistakes and the chaos that would ensue, besides that, what would happen if just every or even just most countries had nukes? Just give them to everybody, and I'm really not convinced we would end up in a Fallout situation but maybe quite a peaceful one? No expert in that but tbh when you think about it most of the countries getting fucked don't have them and the aggressor always seems to do.

I realize this is very simplified and many things I'm probably not seeing but I'm open to learn.

How can we be absolutely sure this is actually an AI agent making autonomous decisions and not just a human wasting our time?

How do you report that account to GitHub? I believe that accounts should be solely for humans and bots (AI or not) only via some API key should be at all times distinguishable and treated as a tool and not part of the conversations.

You phrased it in a way as we decided to or somebody even asked us. I don't think that's how it works. Humans don't sit together and decide their future, we aren't that coordinated or united. But people like Elon and other people or groups, with the right resources, network, luck, talent and money build their vision of the future and how it turns out nobody knows until it happens.

Yes but we gotta understand that sometimes some things the citizens suggest end up on the law. So we should just continuously fight to keep that happening.

Additionally, the EU and its administration, is a big group of people. There are probably different people or teams pushing for this idea, which all in all, is a very good one, maybe even fellow (ex) open source contributors, and the ChatControl thing, surely comes from other groups with entirely different interests.

Hm, I'm trying to keep an open mind here so help me:

Why exactly would that be weak? Given the resources and connections it needs, wouldn't it be actually very strong? Also, I'm from EU, and nobody in their right mind sees Italy as the victim. The politics in Italy gave gone insane and they are a huge example of a fuck up as a whole country. Also the EU, is trying to push censorship law and most companies in EU are fight with everyone they've got to not let them pass and organize petitions and what not.

Also are you all people supporting this law and the fine or do people, for some weird reason, have started to hate Cloudflare and letting their emotions cloud their judgement? Lets forget Cloudflare for a moment and imagine just another company... Would you still agree entirely on this laws contents and the procedures and fines issued? Lets please all focus on the important topic here. Companies come and go, but destructive laws keep us suffering for decades on end, maybe forever.

He is not asking Vance for help as an individual but the position he has for the country the company is headquartered in. What would you expect? They cant go and ask a random country for help on a complicated geopolitical issue. You are supposed (maybe required) to contact officials from your country and relevant agencies and institutions.

I'm not the biggest fan of the US Administration currently either but if a company asks them for help, they're doing what you're supposed to do, and they shouldn't be labeled as bad or sharing the view of the current administration.

That has nothing to do with "hate speech" and is just sold to Americans like that. Critisism and hate speech are entirely diffferent things and US's adminsitration is just.. idk insane lately? In EU, specifically Germany, its very different. You can critique publicly all day every day all politicians, dead or alive, as much as you want to and nobody is allowed to even give you a mean stare. But you can't spread hate or directly specifically offend someone, but surely comment on their performance during their mandate.

"something that could offend someone" thats too simplified.

You can freely express your opinions regarding any political party or head of state and so, but not directly and specifically offend them. You can say "their performance this year wasn't good due to that or this". But cant say "They should eat shit!" or "deserve to be shot" which kinda is also OK because the former doesn't contribute to anything and the latter we all agree is highly immoral or inhumane.

PS: I'm talking from the perspective of Germany, not entirely sure about other countries.

A few is at least 3 because then you'd use "a couple". So its 3 decades or more, which is 30 years at least.